Canada Reads 2018 is now well underway! The first three days of debates are behind us, and with them three books have already been voted off (amidst a lot of drama and controversy), and we are down to our two finalists. Here’s what happened, in case you missed it!
If you have no idea what Canada Reads is, you can go here to check out an overview of the competition along with archived footage to most of the previous years’ debates. You can also check out my post on this year’s contenders and defenders here.
**Watch the videos before reading my comments as they give away which book was eliminated! And because the videos are filmed live in the studio, there can be some breaks in the broadcast. Be sure to watch right to the end of the video, because after the debates and voting there is a small break and then we come back to the studio for a Q&A session with the panel!
**I’ve written some of my comments on the debates, but I don’t have time tonight to re-watch and thoroughly consider what I want to say, so I’ll be adding more to this post later!
Day One
The first day’s debates brought up some of the concerns I had with the books – particularly Tahmoh Penikett’s comments about the world-building in The Marrow Thieves. It’s a book with a lot going for it in terms of content, representation and concept, but if you’re going to write a book set in a dystopian future, you need to give your readers the information they need to understand the world, the players and the stakes. I didn’t feel that happened in the book, but it is one I support based on the content and intended audience – and the fact that although it isn’t perfect, there aren’t enough books that have what it has going for it, and we need it.
I was really surprised that The Boat People was the first book to go. It’s one of the books I haven’t yet finished, but based on what I’ve heard about it, it seemed not only to have been extremely well received as a piece of writing, but also to touch on some very important themes. Immigration has always been a controversial subject, but perhaps never quite so much as it is at the moment given the climate in the US towards immigrants and refugees. Canada has always been viewed (at least, from my perspective) as a haven for refugees, and yet even we have made it harder and harder for people in need of refuge to enter our borders. Even though it’s not one of the books I’ve read, it was one I was rooting for.
Day Two
Well that was some heated debate! I think there are some interesting points being raised here. It seems that the main criticisms being directed towards American War are that it’s too bleak, that it is an American book and therefore doesn’t speak as directly to Canadian history and issues, and that it is too large in scope to help readers see a way to effect change. Not having read it, I can only respond based on the first little bit of it I did sample, and my perception of its content. I don’t have an issue with a book being a downer – I think sometimes there are stories that need to be told precisely because they are not happy ones. The world isn’t a happy place, particularly right now, and without some pretty major changes it won’t matter how we treat one another or what our political viewpoints are – we won’t have a home left to fight over. So if this book is what I think it is, I do think it could be a very important one. I also feel that it carries extra weight having been written by a journalist who has been to war-torn parts of the world, who has seen first-hand what it’s like for those who can’t just turn off the TV when things get too tough to watch. That’s a very important reality for us to become aware of (if we aren’t already).
That said, I do understand the concerns Jeanne Beker raised about the reading experience. This competition isn’t based solely on the literary merit of a book, nor on the issues it addresses. It also needs to consider how much a book is likely to appeal to a diverse population of readers. So it matters if the experience of reading the book is so dark that a good chunk of those who pick it up won’t want to finish it. I would hope that’s not the case here – the writing style is certainly engaging – but that’s something I could see being an issue when it comes to making a final decision. I was a little surprised at how today’s debates went down, and even more surprised at Jeanne Beker’s decision to eliminate Precious Cargo over American War.
For the two books still in contention that I have read, if you’ve read my reviews you’ll know that I have my issues with the execution of both The Marrow Thieves and Forgiveness – I think both could have been 10/10 reads had they been tweaked a bit. Depending how we look at them, I think either could beat out the other. Forgiveness is better written for the first half or so of the book, and it had a much stronger emotional impact on me. That said, I think The Marrow Thieves is the one I’d go with between the two for the theme of this year’s competition, which surprises me to say. But I think Jully Black’s arguments today did sway me. Her point that this book is a bridge – between First Nations and white youth, between different ages of readers – really struck a chord with me. She also brought up that it’s bound to start conversations, even if those are to discuss its issues. I stand by my assessment that the content of this book is excellent, and the issues it touches on are vitally important, but as a story and a piece of writing, it could have been better. But it’s not up against better books that have similar messaging, and as Tahmoh Penikett pointed out, it is a book featuring strong First Nations protagonists, and that shouldn’t be rare, but it is. So I will throw support behind any book that does have positive representation – particularly one for youth to read.
Day Three
I think this was my favourite day of the debates so far. A lot of the thought I have had while reading the books and listening to the debates were touched on, and I found myself nodding along.
Jeanne Beker’s discussion of why she feels Forgiveness‘ look at the past is effective, and Mozhdah Jamalzadah’s input that the way Japanese Canadians were treated isn’t only the past made it more so. I find the issues regarding immigration and immigrants in the western world (North America and parts of Europe in particular) chilling. I think it’s something we need to be looking at from the perspectives of those who have been displaced – usually by violence and war – rather than selfishly wanting to exclude them from the safety we could offer them.
But what I found most interesting in today’s debates was the discussion of whether a book being an enjoyable read was a vital point. It’s something I’ve been wondering about throughout this year’s debates. Personally I think a book needs to have something in it that keeps you wanting to come back, but that thing doesn’t have to be a lighthearted, easy read. Most of the books that have stuck with me and had the deepest impact on me haven’t been enjoyable. Many of them were incredibly difficult to get through. But I grew because of that experience, as we often grow, learn and mature through adversity in our lives. For me, it matters that a book be well written and that it have internal consistency (world-building, nothing that jumps out at me as not fitting with the story or characters), but it doesn’t have to be easy.
I also disagree a bit with Greg Johnson’s perspective. I get where he’s coming from – it’s great that he sees the world as a more positive place. But I think that’s something he is lucky to have based on the place, time and person he was born as. I think his experience isn’t the experience of the majority of the people living in this planet, and I think that people who don’t want to see the world as a dark or negative place right now can be dangerous. We need to see the darkness. We need to engage with it, discuss it and fight it. We can’t just sit back and decide to consume only what makes us feel happy when so many people are paying for that privilege in other parts of the world – or just other parts of our own country. I think balance is good – of course we need to see something hopeful and redeemable in the world in order to want to fight for it – but we can’t hide from the difficult truth of the times we’re living in or avoid taking responsibility for the future we want to leave to our children. I very much agree with Tahmoh Penikett’s take on it:
The day’s debates concluded with the elimination of The Marrow Thieves, leaving the defenders of Mark Sakamoto’s Forgiveness and Omar El Akkad’s American War to battle it out tomorrow! If you want to tune in to watch live, visit CBC’s channel on YouTube (where you can also go to watch the playback anytime after it airs). At this point I think I’m backing American War, even though I haven’t yet finished it for a couple of reasons. Firstly from what I have read, I like the writing style and it seems to be well structured, have good character development, and great world building. I also think that it encompasses a bunch of the themes that have been brought up in relation to the other books. It is set in the future but mirrors the past. It touches on climate change, distribution of wealth and resources, prejudice, war and immigration. I don’t know for sure that I’d feel the same way if I’d finished the book, but based on what I do know of it, I think it’s the stronger of the two contenders and better represents the issues I feel are crucial to the human race, let alone Canadians, at this point in history. I’ve also been swayed by Tahmoh Penikett’s arguments and feel like he is doing a great job of defending his pick.
So that’s it for the first three days! I’ll be back tomorrow to discuss the final decision!